Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 282 posts

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#161

Post by TrevorJ »

jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

The simpler explanation: they understand knowledge is power and are happy to use any convenient excuse to acquire it.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#162

Post by fucking_tragedy »

helicon wrote: post #25

The IRA were known to recruit top stem students from universities in Ireland during their campaign to make bombs. Surely an entity as large and as well financed and ISIS would have little trouble finding bright young engineers & technologists sympathetic to their cause to simply build their own encrypted services? And then so much for the spooks 'backdoors'

Having traffic encrypted with illegal algorithms pass through the Internet would make you a target.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#163

Post by nickpsecurity »

Retra wrote: post #159
nickpsecurity wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. jacquesm's comment is spot on. Additionally, notice that what jacquesm said is never brought up in these debates much like what U.S. did in Operation Ajax or sanctions that followed wasn't factored into recent Iran debates. Much easier to pretend all this stuff happens…

>Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either.…

The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area.

And so on and so forth. Vast majority of terrorism against the U.S. is by actors whose activities or capabilities are directly tied to U.S.'s own imperialism abroad. Not our money, democracy, religion, anything. Just doing evil dangerous stuff over there and funding/equipping those that do the same often to rip off resources.

Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. That means... that eliminating that while working to improve the situation over time might eliminate most terrorism against us? Well, let's do that then!

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#164

Post by enraged_camel »

dionidium wrote: post #155
privacy101 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they would be better off trying to stop what causes these terrorists from wanting to attack us...

You want to remove the terrorist impulse from all of humanity forever? That's...ambitious. But let's take at face value that that's possible, you'd still have to assume that all terrorists have a) some rational set of demands; and b) even if they did, that we'd be willing to meet those demands. What ISIS believes is incompatible with Western democracy. There is nothing we could do to eliminate their desire to attack…

>>ou want to remove the terrorist impulse from all of humanity forever? That's... ambitious.

No, the goal should be to improve the living conditions, infrastructure, access to education, etc of impoverished regions where terrorist sentiment typically appears and festers.

To give an extreme example, there is a reason the Saudi royalty aren't walking into the middle of a marketplace and blowing themselves up: they already have everything they want/need. I'm not saying we should make everyone royalty, but that there is a clear correlation between standard of living and terrorist sentiment.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#165

Post by rnovak »

awakeasleep wrote: post #153
rnovak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that can prove or disprove anything is the abundance of information, which we don't have. We have no idea how many attacks have been prevented (everyone likes to claim this is zero....but they do so without any evidence to support that, as relevant information is surely classified beyond Top Secret). We have only the slightest, tiniest, smallest idea of what the NSA and other intelligence organizations…

Sort of the invisible unicorn argument. I can't really say how many invisible unicorns are in the room with me right now. Could be dozens, if they're small, quiet, and quick to get out of the way.

Not entirely, it's more of the "that word 'proof'/'proves' doesn't mean what you think it means" argument.

My point is entirely aimed at the linguistic use of "proves" than anything else.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#166

Post by hobs »

rnovak wrote: post #135
jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

The only thing that can prove or disprove anything is the abundance of information, which we don't have. We have no idea how many attacks have been prevented (everyone likes to claim this is zero....but they do so without any evidence to support that, as relevant information is surely classified beyond Top Secret). We have only the slightest, tiniest, smallest idea of what the NSA and other intelligence organizations…

I call bull. The government has a strong incentive to prove to us that they are doing an effective thing, and obama and various other officials have been quoted saying from 54 down to various numbers of attacks, and their claims have been shown to be bogus.

This argument is actually subject to Russel's Teapot, if you cant prove or disprove anything the burden of proof is on proving the thing. I have yet to see any evidence.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#167

Post by criddell »

Spearchucker wrote: post #112
jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

You nailed it, I think. If surveillance works, then Paris, Beirut, Bagdad et al wouldn't have happed. Realizing it's a pipe dream, I'd love to see a world accept that we the west have done so much damage that nothing will stop terrorism. Accepting that means we can throw those wasted resources at things that have a better chance of working - throw the tech that detects copyright infringements at detecting pro-ISIL si…

> If surveillance works, then Paris, Beirut, Bagdad et al wouldn't have happed.

I don't think surveillance is very good at preventing terrorism, but I think it could be useful to law enforcement after the fact to round up co-conspirators. I bet that once the identity of the Paris attackers was learned, the NSA pulled up a graph several levels deep of everybody they communicated it or associated with. It could very well help them figure out who else is involved and should be watched.

For the record, I'm opposed to surveillance and would be even if it were shown to be very effective. Privacy is important and is worth more than the lives that have been or will be lost to terrorists and other criminals.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#168

Post by rnovak »

hobs wrote: post #166
rnovak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that can prove or disprove anything is the abundance of information, which we don't have. We have no idea how many attacks have been prevented (everyone likes to claim this is zero....but they do so without any evidence to support that, as relevant information is surely classified beyond Top Secret). We have only the slightest, tiniest, smallest idea of what the NSA and other intelligence organizations…

I call bull. The government has a strong incentive to prove to us that they are doing an effective thing, and obama and various other officials have been quoted saying from 54 down to various numbers of attacks, and their claims have been shown to be bogus. This argument is actually subject to Russel's Teapot, if you cant prove or disprove anything the burden of proof is on proving the thing. I have yet to see any ev…

What incentive is that? The only people they have to prove their worth to are the people that have the power to shut them down.

We as a society do not have that power, and that should be obvious by now.

When a court decided what they were doing was illegal, less than a day later (probably the fastest anything has EVER happen in the legal system), another bench decided that what the NSA was doing was TOO BIG TO STOP. Like seriously, their argument for not stopping something UNCONSTITUTIONAL was that they were doing too much of it.

You and I, and every other civilian who actually understands what they're doing have ZERO power to stop them, so they have ZERO incentive to convince US what matters.

You know who they DO have to convince? The exact people that keep voting to KEEP THEM IN POWER.

I don't care what Obama and his administration claims, like I said, they have no incentive to prove anything to the American public.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#169

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

criddell wrote: post #167
Spearchucker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You nailed it, I think. If surveillance works, then Paris, Beirut, Bagdad et al wouldn't have happed. Realizing it's a pipe dream, I'd love to see a world accept that we the west have done so much damage that nothing will stop terrorism. Accepting that means we can throw those wasted resources at things that have a better chance of working - throw the tech that detects copyright infringements at detecting pro-ISIL si…

> If surveillance works, then Paris, Beirut, Bagdad et al wouldn't have happed. I don't think surveillance is very good at preventing terrorism, but I think it could be useful to law enforcement after the fact to round up co-conspirators. I bet that once the identity of the Paris attackers was learned, the NSA pulled up a graph several levels deep of everybody they communicated it or associated with. It could very we…

I'm opposed as well (I think big piles of personal info are radioactive), but it's worth pointing out that this usage, of finding folks after the fact, should be easy to do in a way that allows proper judicial review, even if the process is expedited. Working from an actual crime makes a lot of things more straightforward vs trying to justify surveillance of someone thought to be a risk, or connected to a risk of some hypothetical future crime.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#170

Post by Retra »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #163
Retra wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either.…

The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area. And so…

Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it's your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business?

That's a stupid and suicidal policy.

>Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us.

So you say. But I can't distinguish that whether that statement is fact or ideology. So I don't believe you, and I shouldn't until you've got some convincing evidence that it's true. You can tell me a story. I don't want a story.

And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so. Seems like a bunch of grudge-holders that need to grow up before negotiations become an option.

Post reply on HN